|
|
The Christchurch Civic Crèche Case |
|
|
|
|
A City Possessed: When I picked up Lynley Hood's 600-page book A City Possessed: The Christchurch Civic
Creche Case, I worried that I wouldn’t have the time or the inclination to
finish it. I shouldn’t have. The book is unputdownable (if there is such a
word). During the 1990s I had not followed the Peter Ellis case,
but in the back of my mind, I suppose I had faith that the legal system would
a) give him a fair trial and b) justice would be done. Having read the book,
I am left with unsettling doubt and a gnawing feeling that neither was
achieved. There is not space in this column to list the evidence but
it's my personal opinion that if the jury had seen and heard all the evidence
(despite the mood of Christchurch at the time) Peter Ellis could not have
been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If some people think it is a crime to use flamboyant
speech, have long fingernails or be a gay man working in early childcare,
then Peter Ellis is guilty. But based on the evidence that's about all he is
guilty of. The case (the full case) needs to be reviewed and Phil
Goff must acquaint himself with the book. I can understand that a Minister
may not have time to read 600 pages but that is no excuse for not having an
official read it or at least making oneself acquainted with the key points. In 1973 after two trials, three appeal dismissals and a
declination by the Privy Council, Rob Muldoon instructed Mr Adams-Smith QC to
review the Arthur Alan Thomas case. Based on the report Muldoon noted in his book My Way that
"it was, very clear to the Cabinet that the statements seen in the
report seen by the ordinary citizen, would cause him to say that Thomas had
not been proved guilty `beyond reasonable doubt'. Phil Goff is faced with a similar situation 29 years
later. Your comments and letters are appreciated. <mailto:[email protected]> |
